Go Bridgette

August 9th, 2012 at 4:00 pm by David Farrar

Whale blogged:

Firstly kudos to Damien for raising a daughter who does indeed think for herself, and even better is willing to disagree with her dad in public.

Bridgette’s comments just reinforce for me, that this is just not an issue for hardly anyone under 35, and in fact many younger kiwis just can’t understand how some people are opposed.

Tags: ,

155 Responses to “Go Bridgette”

  1. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    Same sex “marriage ” a human right?

    Rights gone mad.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. KiwiGreg (3,180 comments) says:

    Next thing you know we wont be able to make them wear pink triangles. Soon after that you wont be able to discriminate against them at all. Thin edge of the wedge. Let’s stop this madness now. There we no gays in olden times, if there were Jesus would have said something bad about them in the bible; they’ve only been invented by feminists since the 50s. If we stop giving them all these rights they will stop chosing their disgusting lifestyles and go back to being normal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Cactus Kate (545 comments) says:

    Kudos? For heavens sake having an old man as a homohatingsaurus it’s no kudos to him.
    She’s obviously a kick ass chick who should be standing for Labour and relegating old Pops to a posting in Niue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Pete George (22,865 comments) says:

    Try understanding how Damien is opposed:

    “In short, I have taken into account all of the facts and I believe that there are far more injustices that need to be addressed. For example, people who are disabled through accidents receive full support, while those disabled from birth do not. These injustices are the issues that need to be addressed.”
    This is nonsense. He’s too busy fighting injustice to vote for a bill that someone else is doing all the work on? Won’t his whip put forward his vote for him if he is too hard pressed to be in parliament?

    If he opposes the bill he should just say so. Or if he can’t be bothered voting he should just say so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. ISeeRed (244 comments) says:

    Is this International Gay Marriage Week at Kiwiblog?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. OneTrack (2,619 comments) says:

    Go Damian. He can think for himself, and even better is willing to disagree with his party in public. I like that. And that he appears happy for his daughter to disagree with him in public, even better.

    As long as its only him and now David Parker who are prepared to break away from the Labour pack, things should stay fine though.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. KiwiGreg (3,180 comments) says:

    @ Iseered EVERY week is Gay Marriage Week ar Kiwiblog

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Tauhei Notts (1,611 comments) says:

    Cactus Kate’s comment about a Labour Party person being sent to Niue; gorgeous.
    Guess which Labour Party member had her father serve as commissioner of police in Niue recently.
    Clue; DPF at 2.00 p.m.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. davidp (3,540 comments) says:

    Well done Bridgette for being able to spell. All the non-O’Connors updating the thread seem to be illiterate. Seriously: “i be leave”!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    What is supposed to say Pete George – you silly little capon. pbuk pbuk pbuuuuk

    Any politician who puts up any opposing argument to this absurdity gets the treatment, he he mentions the Church’s opposition then he is the Taliban, he puts forward the sane rational arguments against this abomination he is “homophobic” or a “hater”.

    The evil people behind this have got it down to a fine art intimidating and silencing opponents while leading silly little sheep such as yourself down the garden path

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Pete George (22,865 comments) says:

    You’re showing the strain Andrei.

    My point was that O’Connor didn’t put up an opposing argument, he put up an excuse, which is quite different. Other things certainly are more important, but the way our parliament works he gets to vote on this bill as well as dealing with injustices.

    Who has silenced what opponents? I notice that you still manage to have your say.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    he puts forward the sane rational arguments against this abomination he is “homophobic” or a “hater”.

    lol lol lol :-)

    Irony galore!

    Andrei, the gift that keeps on giving.

    All I am waiting for is the sane rational argument that this is all the work of the devil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. peteremcc (341 comments) says:

    kowtow says:

    “Same sex “marriage ” a human right?

    Rights gone mad.”

    Same sex marriage isn’t a right by itself, it’s part of freedom of contract and also the freedom to do whatever you want as long as your not hurting anyone else.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. CharlieBrown (910 comments) says:

    Hmmmmm – i wonder what damien considers extreme. I hate that word as its only used to describe what is politically unfashionable. The Nazi’s considered opposition to them as extreme. Unfortunately Damien, and 99% of parliament is full of people that believe that personal responsibility and thinking for yourself is extreme.

    The fact that there is debate on legalising personal choices that don’t effect anyone else shows that todays form of democracy is utter shit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I am loving this. In reality this bill should be passed in about two and half minutes and then Parliament can get on Parlimenting, its a nothing.

    I remember when homo’s were made legal. The world was going to end . Its a shame there are not free archives online, some of the headlines back then were gold.

    But as its going to drag on for months, Andrei and Fletch et al are going to get ulcers slugging it out. They have already started to run out of puff, I was accused of being secretly homo the other night, so when that starts its the beginning of the end.

    And finally homosexual is an adjective not a noun . There is no such thing as a homo or hetrosexual person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    Bridgette’s comments just reinforce for me, that this is just not an issue for hardly anyone under 35, and in fact many younger kiwis just can’t understand how some people are opposed.

    Yeah but so what?

    I mean if you ask that same age bracket whether or not war is bad then you’d get the same answer. Possibly with a petulant stamp of the foot as well. But this doesn’t mean those children understand why war happens, does it. And understanding that is the only way to prevent it. Otherwise it’s just childish chatter. However the first words of Bridgette’s comment also indicates that on this issue she too, like many others in this country, also has no idea about the dynamics of the issue, when she refers to “human rights.”

    As any sentient being knows, this issue has nothing whatsoever to do with human rights. Of course its proponents allege it has everything to do with that, and they allege those lies from the rooftops. But only naive children who don’t understand the world truly believe that’s the case, surely. The logic disproving their claim is elementary and has been enuciated here many times, I hope it’s not even necessary to do it again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    peteremc

    thanks for the lesson. Now read the 2 O’Connors’ tweets above and educate them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Eisenhower (137 comments) says:

    And finally homosexual is an adjective not a noun . There is no such thing as a homo or hetrosexual person

    Actually it’s both.

    ho·mo·sex·u·al
       [hoh-muh-sek-shoo-uhl or, especially Brit., -seks-yoo-]
    adjective
    1. of, pertaining to, or exhibiting homosexuality.
    2. of, pertaining to, or noting the same sex.
    noun
    3. a homosexual person.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Its still an adjective ” a homosexual person”

    Tall isn’t a noun either – ‘a tall person”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Fletch (6,029 comments) says:

    FFS, since when was marriage a “human right”?

    I have to pity today’s brainwashed youth.
    No wonder people I know are increasingly opting for home schooling.
    At least they learn to think for themselves and bypass the indoctrination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    @pete george: to be fair on Damian, he did put forward an argument that there is indeed discrimination and injustice just not enough to warrant a change.

    Which is fair enough as an argument not to introduce legislation to make the change. However if such legislation is introduced that removes that discrimination and injustice, however small, it’s rather strange to vote against it.

    The cynic in me says that he just wants tocover his bases. Vote against it to keep his conservative base happy, but get sympathies from the pro camp through his daughter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Urban Redneck (234 comments) says:

    Homosexuals (the men in particular) have no intention of honoring the long-held marital covenant of monogamy. So the homosexual marital union is a sham straight off the bat.

    In Holland (the first country in the world to legalize homosexual civil “marriages”), researchers found that homosexual men who were in partnered relationships still managed to ratchet up an average of eight sexual partners per year outside of the primary relationship in the first year of the coupling. This is an astonishing contrast to the typical behavior of married heterosexuals, among whom 75% of the men and 85% of the women report never having had extra-marital sexual acts even once during the entire duration of their marriage. Numerous studies over the years corroborate the fact that male homosexuals engage in levels of promiscuity you wouldn’t see in a warren of rabbits who’s carrots have been spiked with Viagra. The famous study by homosexual doctors Alan Bell & Martin Weinburg found that nearly half of the male homosexuals surveyed had clocked up more than 500 sexual partners in their lifetimes.

    Instead of marriage changing the behaviour of homosexuals to match the relative sexual fidelity of the straights, it seems likely that the opposite would arise. If gay relationships – rampant promiscuity and all – are held up to society as being a fully equal part of the social ideal that is called “marriage,” then the value of sexual fidelity as an expected standard of behavior for married people will further erode—even among the straights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    If gays are allowed to marry, Urban is going to have an affair. And we wouldn’t want that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    If gays are allowed to marry, Urban is going to have an affair. And we wouldn’t want that.

    well, at least he would get some sex and blow off some steam.

    Any sources for such claims, Urban, or are you just making things up?
    Last time you quoted a study from the Netherlands you got it completely wrong.

    I would say you are probably pasting shit from an anti-gay site and not even bothered to look into those studies.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. UpandComer (506 comments) says:

    Oh yada yada yada it’s not like many homosexuals are even going to ‘get’ married, you won’t have Pete and Dave couples suddenly overwhelming parent teacher interviews. That said the bill is pretty unnecessary – Civil unions = full rights, so….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Instead of marriage changing the behaviour of homosexuals to match the relative sexual fidelity of the straights, it seems likely that the opposite would arise

    Actually, more nonsense from you. If you had even bothered to look at the last study you quoted from the Netherlands, you would have noticed that it was a study about HIV infection rates of male homosexuals in long term relationships vs singles. Showed that infection rates drop for those in relationships.

    Wow, imagine that. Facts contradicting you nonsense. Who would have thought.

    Besides, the only people complaining about promiscuity are the ones least likely to be affected.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Urban

    John Fitzgerald Kennedy racked up about 500 strays during his marriage.

    Georges Simenon allegedly 10000.

    Ask the Auckland working girls on test weekend how many single guys rock in pissed at midnight for $150.

    but it is good that you are able to speak with such certaintity regards the homo’s “( men in particular) having no intention of honouring the long-held marital covenant of monogamy”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Or just go down to Auckland Waterfront on a Saturday night.
    A covenant of monogamy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    No wonder people I know are increasingly opting for home schooling.
    At least they learn to think for themselves and bypass the indoctrination.

    You have to love these gems!

    Home schooling at your place would not be indoctrination?
    You would let your kids think for themselves?

    Yeah, right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. David Garrett (6,461 comments) says:

    FFS DPF…Will ya give the “gay marriage is a fantastic idea” mantra a rest?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    DG

    Its great, the gut wrenching, the worrying , the fear -all very similar to what Keith Hay and others tried to whip up during the debate regards making homo’s legal. The thousands of column inches, the talk back -all over something that was going to destroy New Zealand and did it? no.

    Like I said above its something that should be whipped through Parliament in 2 minutes and then we can move on.

    Its much more fun reading the likes of “Urban” than anything likely to be on TV.

    And I do like Urbans ‘Thesis” that if gays are allowed to marry their promiscurity will water down my marriage and I’ll start stray fucking all over the place, and this apparently will be accepted as the norm. Thats a win as far as far as I can see so bring it on, I just hope my wife is as positive as Urban seems to be.

    Seriously, this is gold

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    Pauleastbay (2,559) Says:
    August 9th, 2012 at 5:49 pm

    I am loving this. In reality this bill should be passed in about two and half minutes and then Parliament can get on Parlimenting, its a nothing.

    I remember when homo’s were made legal. The world was going to end . Its a shame there are not free archives online, some of the headlines back then were gold.

    PEB, there are. Just Google Papers past and then search the subject. All the newspaper clippings you could want. Including from that geiringer fellow whose twisted son is lawyer for the brown bros.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (338 comments) says:

    Its still an adjective ” a homosexual person” Tall isn’t a noun either – ‘a tall person”

    homosexual |ˌhōməˈsek sh oōəl|
    adjective
    (of a person) sexually attracted to people of one’s own sex.
    • involving or characterized by sexual attraction between people of the same sex : homosexual desire.
    noun
    a person who is sexually attracted to people of their own sex.
    _________________

    FFS, since when was marriage a “human right”?
    I have to pity today’s brainwashed youth.
    No wonder people I know are increasingly opting for home schooling.
    At least they learn to think for themselves and bypass the indoctrination.

    since at least 10 December 1948 –
    The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Article 16.
    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Thanks V2 but I can’t bring any Auckland papers after 1945 it seems to stop there

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    PIE

    There is no way in the world the people that wrote that intended it to mean “same sex” marriage.”Human rights” are being streched to breaking point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    It’s a matter of civil rights, not human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    LOL

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    Don’t see “gender identity” mentioned nor “sexual orientation”

    But I do see the distinct implication that it is about raising the next generation

    3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

    Which means of course the State will be violating The Universal Declaration of Human Rights if it passes this travesty

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (338 comments) says:

    kowtow – some loop questioned whether marriage is a right.
    Under the Declaration it is.
    Nothing to do, as you say, with homosexuality, the acts of which were in 1948 criminal, but marriage was declared then, and still is, a right – right?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    It’s a matter of up ending the very meaning of words and institutions,dressed up as equality and discrimination. Madness.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    There is no way in the world the people that wrote that intended it to mean “same sex” marriage.”Human rights” are being streched to breaking point.

    Indeed Kowtow, the framers of the Constitution of Massachusetts would be spinning in their graves when the realized that their document meant that two people of the same sex should be able to wed.

    On that matter the two Lesbians who took it to court and got the ruling they were entitled to marry one another lived in marital bliss for a whole two years before they divorced – real pioneers they were

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Puzzled in Ekatahuna – nobody has a right to a wedding, everybody has the right to seek a spouse from the pool of eligible people of the opposite gender to themselves and if that person is agreeable to marry them.

    You cannot for example marry a close relative, a child, or someone who is already married to someone else, even if the other is agreeable.

    And I am sure that nobody is about to claim that those prohibitions are a violation of anybody’s human rights – rather they help to preserve them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. big bruv (13,318 comments) says:

    Andrei

    Do you not think that the framers would also be spinning in their graves if they saw what had happened to the separation of church and state?

    Come to think of it, what about the second amendment?, do you not think those guys would be highly pissed off at the way certain groups have twisted things when it comes to the gun laws?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    So if some poor old ejeet who proposed to various women through his life and was always rejected,could we say his “right” to marriage was denied?

    I’d say it is not a right (off the top of my head) It’s a condition ,a state an institution.

    A specific examination of the context of that document would be necessary to see what they were getting at.

    I have a feeling the declaration is really about the state NOT preventing people from getting married ie inter racial/religion bars which were common, Even perhaps a refernce to the Nazis and their bars to various races mixing,I don’t know.

    If one were to use the Declaration as definitive on rights,then it excludes ‘same sex” marriage.Let’s run with that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    bwah hahaha

    bigot bruv read what you’re talking about a wee bit more carefully.

    Andrei was referring to the Constitution of Massachocho,quite clearly. It calls for a religious people! Not a separation of church and state.

    And while we’re about it. The 2nd amendment you refer to is actually about freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion. I know you’d like to frame the Founders in your image but there you have it.

    Andrei
    I reckon the writers of those various constitutions would have specified man/woman if they had a crystal ball,but it goes to show how times change and how mad our times are.Equality!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    And while we’re about it. The 2nd amendment you refer to is actually about freedom of religion rather than freedom from religion.

    So the 2nd Amendment allows the State to impose religion on people?

    Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Thanks for introducing the Bell & Weinberg study, Urban Redneck.

    The study, apart from being 35 years out of date, was flawed in its sampling of homosexuals.

    “homosexual samples were taken from the following places: singles bars (22%), gay baths (9%), public places (=guys hanging out in parks to find sex partners; 6%), private bars (=sex clubs; 5%), personal contacts (people that the bar people, public place people, bath house people, etc, knew personally and referred; 23%), public advertising + organizations + mailing lists (29%).The heterosexual sample, on the other hand, were people in residential areas, admittedly including married people. These two samples are not parallel, and even if they had included the heterosexual data, they would not be comparable. In order for this data to have been generalizable, they would have had to go to heterosexual singles bars, sex clubs, bookstores, etc, to get their population.”
    http://www.jeramyt.org/gay/gayhealth.html#appa

    If you are going to go to pick-up joints for your study (65% of the sample), of course you are going to notice a high level of promiscuity.

    Also, the study debunks ‘Cholic’ Colin Craig’s assertion that homosexuality is a choice and caused by sexual abuse.

    What you did there is called cherry-picking data and makes you look like you are simply googling studies and finding things that suit your opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    FFS DPF…Will ya give the “gay marriage is a fantastic idea” mantra a rest?

    DG I’m surprised you don’t get it.

    This is Key’s opportunity, in Key’s mind and that of his pollster (whomever that is), to reverse the bad polling Key has recently started to experience along the lines of Key being a sneering, typical, arrogant banker amongst the floaters, and growing. (Yes it’s not expressed in those particular words but that’s what’s been happening in the mood of the country. I’ve been picking up that sentiment for around six months now, in my own political radar.)

    So guess what, the gay marriage issue comes along like mana from Heaven, by crikey, to demonstrate Key is actually, quite the libewal. And what’s the downside? A few Christians? Who cares about them?

    Is this driven by a principled stand on a human wights issue because “it’s the wight thing to do?” Or are there other things going on?

    It’s interesting to me BTW, how much the religious aspect is coming out in this debate. While I don’t actually think Christians have a rigid one-size-fits-all on this, it’s possibly the case that if there was a way to stereotype the largest opposition into a particular group, it would be Christians. And lots of the proponents are assuming the opposition is Christian even when that’s not necessarily the case.

    One aspect of course is that with Key’s mother being a Jew, he is of course considered to be also a Jew, hence not a Christian. Does this mean Key is sanguine about this attack on Christians? I wonder who else in his support camp on this issue is of the same denomination.

    And if Key supporters come back and say: how dare I, then well, why doesn’t Key come out and say that if people with faith deeply believe it is wrong, they have the perfect right to object. I imagine that he would have said that a long time ago if it were Jews being attacked, but it’s not too late even now, provided he says it loudly and often.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Viking2 (11,146 comments) says:

    http://screencast.com/t/k2fFYXJFuudP

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. noskire (832 comments) says:

    Heck, doesn’t this country have more pressing agendas, rather than fillibusting about poo-pushers or carpet-munchers being able to tie the knot. Really?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Griff (6,826 comments) says:

    Reid
    Who against the bill is not Christian?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Some interesting reading:

    “Children raised by lesbian mothers or gay fathers did not systematically differ from other children on any of the outcomes. The studies indicate that children raised by lesbian women do not experience adverse outcomes compared with other children.”
    2002 Anderssen N. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43(4): 335-351. “Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000″

    “The author reviewed the research on gay and lesbian parents and their children. The current body of research has been clear and consistent in establishing that children of gay and lesbian parents are as psychologically healthy as their peers from heterosexual homes.”
    2005 Lambert S. Family Journal: Counseling & Therapy for Couples & Families 13(1): 43-51. “Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here”

    “This study examined associations among family type (same-sex vs. opposite-sex parents); family and relationship variables; and the psychosocial adjustment, school outcomes, and romantic attractions and behaviors of adolescents. Participants included 44 12- to 18-year-old adolescents parented by same-sex couples and 44 same-aged adolescents parented by opposite-sex couples, matched on demographic characteristics and drawn from a national sample. Normative analyses indicated that, on measures of psychosocial adjustment and school outcomes, adolescents were functioning well, and their adjustment was not generally associated with family type. Assessments of romantic relationships and sexual behavior were not associated with family type. Regardless of family type, adolescents whose parents described closer relationships with them reported better school adjustment.”
    2004 Wainright J. Child Development 75(6): 1886-1898. “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents”

    “Existing research on children with lesbian parents is limited by reliance on volunteer or convenience samples. The present study examined the quality of parent-child relationships and the socioemotional and gender development of a community sample of 7-year-old children with lesbian parents. Families were recruited through the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children, a geographic population study of 14,000 mothers and their children. Thirty-nine lesbian-mother families, 74 two-parent heterosexual families, and 60 families headed by single heterosexual mothers were compared on standardized interview and questionnaire measures administered to mothers, co-mothers/fathers, children, and teachers. Findings are in line with those of earlier investigations showing positive mother-child relationships and well-adjusted children.”
    2003 Millbank J. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38: 541-600. “From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay families.”

    “Courts determine custody and visitation on the basis of the “best interests of the child.” Current judicial rulings in some jurisdictions reflect a bias against awarding custody or granting visitation rights to homosexual parents, favoring the heterosexual parent or heterosexual relative of the child(ren). Should the sexual orientation of the parent play a part in the determination of custody or visitation in order to protect the child? This meta-analysis summarizes the available quantitative literature comparing the impact of heterosexual and homosexual parents, using a variety of measures, on the child(ren). The analyses examine parenting practices, the emotional well-being of the child, and the sexual orientation of the child. The results demonstrate no differences on any measures between the heterosexual and homosexual parents regarding parenting styles, emotional adjustment, and sexual orientation of the child(ren). In other words, the data fail to support the continuation of a bias against homosexual parents by any court.”
    1996 Allen M. J of Homosexuality 32(2):19-35. “Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research”

    It just goes on and on and on:

    “e) gay/lesbian parents report no greater stress than heterosexuals, and children are not adversely affected by being raised by homosexual families

    2005 Lambert S. Family Journal: Counseling & Therapy for Couples & Families 13(1): 43-51. “Gay and Lesbian Families: What We Know and Where to Go From Here”
    2004 Wainright J. Child Development 75(6): 1886-1898. “Psychosocial Adjustment, School Outcomes, and Romantic Relationships of Adolescents With Same-Sex Parents”
    2003 Golombok S. Developmental Psychology 39: 20-33. “Children with lesbian parents: A community study.”
    2003 Millbank J. Australian Journal of Social Issues 38: 541-600. “From here to maternity: A review of the research on lesbian and gay families.”
    2002 Vanfraussen K. Journal of Reproductive and Infant Psychology 20: 237-252. “What does it mean for youngsters to grow up in a lesbian family created by means of donor insemination.”
    2002 Golombok S. British Medical Journal 234: 1407-1408. “Adoption by lesbian couples.”
    2002 Anderssen N. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 43(4): 335-351. “Outcomes for children with lesbian or gay parents: A review of studies from 1978 to 2000″
    2002 Perrin E. Pediatrics 109: 341-344. “Technical report: Coparent or second-parent adoption by same-sex partners.”
    2001 Stacey J. American Sociological Review 66: 159-183. “(How) Does the Sexual Orientation of Parents Matter?”
    2000 Patterson C. Journal of Marriage and the Family 62: 1052-1069. “Family relationships of lesbians and gay men.”
    1999 Fitzgerald B. Marriage and Family Review 29(1): 57-75. “Children of lesbian and gay parents: A review of the literature”
    1999 Tasker F. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry 4(2): 153-166. “Children in lesbian-led families: A review”
    1998 Binder R. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 26(2): 267-276. ” American Psychiatric Association resource document on controversies in child custody: Gay and lesbian parenting, transracial adoptions, joint versus sole custody, and custody gender issues.”
    1998 McNeill K. Psychological Reports 82:59-62. ” Families and parenting: A comparison of lesbian and heterosexual mothers”
    1998 Parks C. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 68(3): 376-389. “Lesbian parenthood: A review of the literature”
    1997 Brewaeys A. Human Reproduction 12:1349-59
    1997 Brewaeys A. J of Psychosomatic Obs and Gyn 18:1-16
    1997 Patterson C. Advances in Clinical Child Psychology 19:235-282. “Children of lesbian and gay parents”
    1997 Tasker F. Journal of Divorce and Remarriage 1997 28 (1-2) 183-202. “Young People’s Attitudes toward Living in a Lesbian Family: A Longitudinal Study of Children Raised by Post-Divorce Lesbian Mothers”
    1996 Allen M. J of Homosexuality 32(2):19-35. “Comparing the impact of homosexual and heterosexual parents on children: Meta-analysis of existing research”
    1996 Golombok S. Developmental Psychology 32 (1) p3-11. “Do Parents Influence the Sexual Orientation of Their Children? Findings from a Longitudinal Study of Lesbian Families.”
    1996 Patterson C. Journal of Social Issues 52(3): 29-50. “Lesbian and gay families with children: Implications of social science research for policy”
    1995 Bailey J. Developmental Psychology 31(1): 124-129. “Sexual orientation of adult sons of gay fathers.”
    1995 Flaks D. Developmental Psychology 31(1): 105-114. “Lesbians choosing motherhood: A comparative study of lesbian and heterosexual parents and their children.”
    1995 Fowler G. Family and Conciliation Courts Review 33(3): 361-376.”Homosexual parents: Implications for custody cases”
    1995 Tasker F. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 65:203-15. “Adults Raised as Children in Lesbian Families”
    1995 van-Nijnatten C. Medicine and Law 14(5-6): 359-368. “Sexual orientation of parents and Dutch family law.”
    1995 Victor S. School Psychology Review 24(3): 456-479. ” Lesbian mothers and the children: A review for school psychologists.”
    1994 McIntyre D. Mediation Quarterly 12(2), winter, 135-149. “Gay Parents and Child Custody: A Struggle under the Legal System”
    1993 Patterson C. , Annual Progress in Child Psychiatry and Child Development 33-62 “Children of Lesbian and Gay Parents”
    1992 Baggett C. Law and Psychology Review 16: 189-200. “Sexual orientation: Should it affect child custody rulings.”
    1987 Kirkpatrick M. J of Homosexuality 14:201-11. “Clinical Implications of Lesbian Mother Studies”
    1986 Green R. Archives of Sexual Behavior 15:167-184. “Lesbian Mothers and Their Children: A Comparison with Solo Parent Heterosexual Mothers and Their Children”
    1986 Kleber D. Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 14(1):81-87. “The impact of parental homosexuality in child custody cases: A review of the literature”
    1983 Golombok S. J of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 24:551-572. “Children in lesbian and single-parent households: Psychosexual and psychiatric appraisal”
    1982 Green R. Bulletin of the Am Acad of Psychiatry and Law 10:7-15. “The best interests of the child with a lesbian mother”
    1981 Hoeffer B. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:536-44. “Children’s acquisition of sex-role behavior in lesbian-mother families”
    1981 Kirkpatrick M. Am J of Orthopsychiatry 51:545-551. “Lesbian mothers and their children: A comparative survey”
    1981 Miller J. J of Homosexuality 7(1):49-56. “The child’s home environment for lesbian vs. heterosexual mothers: A neglected area of research”
    1980 Lewis K. Social Work 25:198-203. “Children of Lesbians: Their Point of View”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    doesn’t this country have more pressing agendas

    Agenda 1): Key’s popularity.
    Agenda 2): NZ’s standing with the human wights commission in the UN and the diplomatic community generally
    Agenda 3): Undermining the ground from the lefties by proving the conservatives care about the gays
    Agenda 4:) The good of the country and the right thing to do.

    So as you can see noskire, the most pressing agendi are being implemented, one sincerely hopes one gets with the program at the earliest opportunity, lest something sad happen to one in due course when one gets around to it.

    Who against the bill is not Christian?

    I’m against the bill but not because I’m Christian. Does that count?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Fletch (6,029 comments) says:

    So the 2nd Amendment allows the State to impose religion on people?

    Really?

    Wat, the 2nd Amendment says that the State cannot enforce a national religion, and the State should not butt into people’s lives with regard to the practice of religion. In short, the “separation of Church and State” means exactly the opposite of what you think it means.

    Jefferson had committed himself as President to pursuing the purpose of the First Amendment: preventing the “establishment of a particular form of Christianity” by the Episcopalians, Congregationalists, or any other denomination.

    Since this was Jefferson’s view concerning religious expression, in his short and polite reply to the Danbury Baptists on January 1, 1802, he assured them that they need not fear; that the free exercise of religion would never be interfered with by the federal government. As he explained:

    Gentlemen, – The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association give me the highest satisfaction. . . . Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association assurances of my high respect and esteem. [9]

    Jefferson’s reference to “natural rights” invoked an important legal phrase which was part of the rhetoric of that day and which reaffirmed his belief that religious liberties were inalienable rights. While the phrase “natural rights” communicated much to people then, to most citizens today those words mean little.

    By definition, “natural rights” included “that which the Books of the Law and the Gospel do contain.” [10] That is, “natural rights” incorporated what God Himself had guaranteed to man in the Scriptures. Thus, when Jefferson assured the Baptists that by following their “natural rights” they would violate no social duty, he was affirming to them that the free exercise of religion was their inalienable God-given right and therefore was protected from federal regulation or interference.

    So clearly did Jefferson understand the Source of America’s inalienable rights that he even doubted whether America could survive if we ever lost that knowledge. He queried:

    And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? [11]

    Jefferson believed that God, not government, was the Author and Source of our rights and that the government, therefore, was to be prevented from interference with those rights. Very simply, the “fence” of the Webster letter and the “wall” of the Danbury letter were not to limit religious activities in public; rather they were to limit the power of the government to prohibit or interfere with those expressions.

    MORE

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    jeez wat you;rebeing a pillock,I never said that.Keep making stuff up.

    Funny how so many people do that on kb,make stuff up! Soviet tactic,telling lies and falsifying things.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    I’ve just figured out where the fabric of NZ society began to break down and gave the homo’s the idea that they were human to.

    It was when dairys were allowed to be open for two hours on a Sunday morning so you could buy a half a loaf of fresh bread , that was the beginning. There was huge gnashing of teeth at this. Remember you could only buy bread and milk “basics” the stores would have curtains over stuff you weren’t allowed to buy.

    Then that Sodom and Gomorrah known as Parnell Village was allowed to open on a Saturday morning and the godless Queenstown followed suit.

    Only older viewers will remember the shit fight that went on regards weekend trading, the exact same arguments were used as are being posted here i.e break down of family life, teenage pregancies will explode because mum and dad are working and the kids aren’t getting dragged off to church. And it was basically the same people although I havn’t seen any unionist here opposing the proposed changes to the act, but the god botherers were out in force on it.

    So there you have it – its all happened because people wanted to buy a fresh loaf of bread.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    the 2nd Amendment says that the State cannot enforce a national religion, and the State should not butt into people’s lives with regard to the practice of religion.

    Well, quite.

    kowtow appears to think otherwise.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (338 comments) says:

    We’re same sex and want to get married.

    OK – it seems inevitable. What do you want call it?

    ‘Marriage’.

    No, that’s already being used for marriage between heterosexuals – that’s what it means: between a man and woman – has for centuries. So what do you want call this same sex thing?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. wat dabney (3,672 comments) says:

    Sin?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Hamnida (905 comments) says:

    This is a very confusing debate for you Neolibs – can’t decide if your’e socially liberal or socially conservative. You all seem very fixated with a topic you often hassle the Left about. Makes me wonder where you Neolibs are really coming from. I hope you Neolibs are aware there are homosexuals in the National party too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    You know Boredboy you can post all the agenda driven activist written “studies” you want, they are junk science designed to demonstrate a predetermined outcome and make less sense the Lewis Carrol’s poem Jabberwocky.

    Im a family man, love kids and whenever I encounter fatherless boys they are always all over me, chatting, wanting to play ball, arm wrestle – I let them win after a struggle and so forth. It is tragic to see

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    PEB

    families have fallen apart,girls are preggers all over ther shop, people don’t bother with marriage and family,everyone wants to suck off the tit of the fewer earners out there…drugs are all over etc etc gummints (us) broke etc

    something’s gone tits up.Now I’m not saying it’s cos of the turd burglers or Sunday trading but it’s not as rosey as some would make out.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    reid

    People of faith have every right to object, its just that their reasons are so fucking pathetic that its open season on the piss taking- they propose, I oppose .

    And do tell me where the PM has criticized people for being against the proposed changes or where he has publicly stated he identifies himself as Jewish. You might as well say he is catholic because his father in law was or protestant because his mother in law was.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    its just that their reasons are so fucking pathetic that its open season on the piss taking

    List their reasons then Paul. Go ahead. I’m just wondering if you know what they are?

    And do tell me where the PM has criticized people for being against the proposed changes

    I didn’t say he ever had Paul and if you think I did please quote me.

    where he has publicly stated he identifies himself as Jewish

    Not that his public proclamation has anything to do with what I was saying Paul, but it is the Jewish faith that one inherits Jewishness from one’s mother. Otherwise one is a goyim. That’s how it works. One doesn’t have to declare it. So not sure why you ask.

    But isn’t it interesting as a sidebar that the Jews have this exclusive thing whereas we’re arguing here over the gays. I wonder what Jews would say if we demanded they open their faith to any old goyim? Wouldn’t that be interesting. But same principle.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    kowtow

    Things actually arent that bad, now I’m no university graduate but I’ve read abit and socially especially for the less fotunate and less able in our society things have never been better especially regards healthcare education and all round opportunity.

    I give you the fact that things have swung too far in some aspects but its not the end of the world.

    In the 50′s and 60′s there might have been cradle to grave welfare but it was also cradle to grave “do as you’re fucking told” by the government and the unions and the churches- every aspect of life was controlled.

    By the way girls have always got pregnant, there has always been hookers.

    What I really see is the fear from organised religion in that they no longer control people, – really, think about it, the local 27 year old virgin priest giving marriage advice to a couple , ludicrous.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. cha (3,779 comments) says:

    I see you’re not content with swallowing Bartons revisionist tripe yourself Fletch but now you’re trying sell his lies. Shame.

    http://wthrockmorton.com/davidbarton/

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. Griff (6,826 comments) says:

    Reid
    Almost all against the bill are Christian
    why?
    Because they feel that they have the right to enforce Christian morals on everyone else
    There is lots of excuses and fudging, lies and bullshite by the Christians to the rest of us. Its pretty transparent to those that are not against the bill. Notice I said not against many here just don’t care and are only supporting the bill because the Christians are so offensive in their debate

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    Did I tell you how he chatted up the wife’s sister in law after he married the wife and I then Reid?

    Alzheimer’s mate! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    PEB

    I don’t believe the churches really ,seriously believe they have the power they may once have had or even care, Those days are long gone and take it from me, I think thats a good thing.
    Howevr there is a vacuum and I see alost youth and indeed whole classes. I do believe the very fabric of society is falling apart and only a thin veneer is keeping it together. Part of that is our tradition and belief in who we are and whrere we’ve come from and Christianity plays a big part in that and will continue to.

    In Italy there have been attacks on their display of crucifix in state institutions ,now the Eyeties are Catholic but also secular and they say to thos e challenges eff off it;s part of what we are.
    In Quebec some commission told them to take the Crucifix out of their parliament,now those Quebeckers aren’t famous for going to Church onSunday and they are pro all sorts of evrything but they said, nope dat cross is part of our identity eff off.
    Same with our prayer at parliament, it’s as much tradition ,background,history,identity as anything deeply theological (though of course that’s part of it)

    Personally I do think things are pretty bad. Not terminal.Materially things are bloody great and long may it last. How much is based on other peoples work and debt though? Spiritually we’re fucked.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    Gruff

    Without a refendum we will never know who is for or against.

    In a world of relative morality Christians can be expected to hold fast though and that’s what you are seeing. Mind you there’s a lot of support from “progressive” Christians ,so as ever you are talking out you’re ass.

    I don’t want to impose Christianity on anyone. However I don’t want socialists imposing false equality and imagined notions of discrimination on society, They’ve done enough damage as it is.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Pauleastbay (5,035 comments) says:

    Kowtow

    I still think the churches like the unions still crave power, its natural when you have had enormous power no body likes giving it up.

    I rate our society on how free we are, now ,of course that is abused by some, but I love the fact the my kids have greater opportunities than even I had 30 years ago and I had opportunities light years ahead of what my parents had.

    1977 the world was buggered the USA was buggered, Carter was President, England was buggered, we had disco, oil shocks, the world was ending, did it ? no. Humans are remarkable and people are still dying around the world everyday fighting for the freedoms thats you appear to be rueing, so things are’nt that bad

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. freemark (452 comments) says:

    Fuck, this is getting beyond a joke.. the fucking mental energy wasted on such a non issue..
    I have nothing against gay relationships (although the butch bitches on Waiheke scare me a bit) and nothing against extreme promiscuity, but why is this issue hijacking all the blogs?
    Civil Union = every right Marriage enjoys, WTF is the big deal about the bit of paper? Wall has assured the churchies that they are not obligated to marry anyone they don’t wish to, so it is a bit of a non law anyway.
    Is this the the proud right bending over (excuse the pun) to appease someone or apologise for something?
    Why doesn’t the Govt say ” okay, well pass it, but STFU about MOM?

    I love my daughters (5 & 8) and my cat.. can I marry them please?
    I love Vodka, wine, beer, steak, Whales (tasty with soy & wasabi).. can I marry them?
    I love my shotgun..

    FFS, enough of this pointless waste of time that will affect who?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    “I love my shotgun..”

    You can be my bridesmaid when I get to marry my favourite ewe in a year or two! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Puzzled in Ekatahuna (338 comments) says:

    Fresh ructions have erupted in Labour as its conservative Pacific supporters question a gay marriage push and one-time leadership rival David Cunliffe is targeted by a whispering campaign over his ambitions.
    Both issues are likely to rear their head at Labour’s caucus next week after they overshadowed leader David Shearer’s launch of a “heartland” tour designed to take the party’s message to rural New Zealand.
    Mangere MP Su’a William Sio yesterday broke ranks over a member’s bill promoted by fellow Labour MP Louisa Wall and warned it would cost Labour the next election.
    He told National Radio the issue “cuts deep into fundamental beliefs” and would divide the community, but he later went to ground.

    Good – one Member of Parliament may try to reflect the feelings of his supporters
    But WTF – it is because it may loose their support otherwise in 2014.
    Labour needs a bloody Leader who can tell then if they are coming or bloody going

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    Heard of shotgun marriages, Johnboy, not new

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    He could dress his cat as flower girl Yvette. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Yvette (2,692 comments) says:

    May be better than becoming a bagel – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VSJHdQMajfE&feature=player_embedded

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    I had something like this in mind.

    http://www.google.co.nz/imgres?q=cat+flower+girl&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1142&bih=598&tbm=isch&prmd=imvns&tbnid=jlvgLMrwqKENJM:&imgrefurl=http://thelushandthepigeon.blogspot.com/2010_08_01_archive.html&docid=KGNuqFt_MaItFM&imgurl=http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_BskDaZuA7Mk/TGwCj6f-7KI/AAAAAAAAAEE/dXxNTvpBn9Q/s1600/cat-fashion-show-21.jpg&w=600&h=400&ei=BpkjUL_dKojAiQeUroDQCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=480&vpy=151&dur=865&hovh=125&hovw=170&tx=146&ty=73&sig=104124734316792355775&page=2&tbnh=125&tbnw=170&start=19&ndsp=24&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:19,i:140

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Why get a room when you can get a thread! Yvette, be a bit careful about our Johnboy, he’s not who you think he is :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Manolo (13,394 comments) says:

    A human right? Out of this world, indeed!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. The Scorned (719 comments) says:

    There IS a right for any human being to seek marriage with another ….so butt out and leave people alone to do so..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Does this mean you’ve given up? Andrei?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Other than the title of ‘married’ is denied a gay couple today?

    To your question boredboy, I think exhausting any opposition is part of DPFs instruction sheet. It seems to be succeeding. I know I’ve been worn down by the abuse

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Craig Ranapia (1,912 comments) says:

    To your question boredboy, I think exhausting any opposition is part of DPFs instruction sheet. It seems to be succeeding. I know I’ve been worn down by the abuse

    Yeah, krazikiwi, I think it’s disgusting how you’ve been casually equated to child molesters, rapists and animal-shaggers. And isn’t it awful how O’Connor, Su’a William Sio, Bill English, Colin Craig, and the entire New Zealand Bishop’s Conference can’t open their mouths in public because of the harassment and intimidation? Oh, wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Lol krazykiwi. Abuse? You wouldn’t even know the meaning of that word, son.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Ed Snack (1,739 comments) says:

    Bridgette is showing just how clueless and morally absurd the whole “gay marriage” propaganda has become. A human right, really ? To marry the one you love is a “human right”, I suppose that means she must *(or be terminally stupidly hypocritical) support siblings marrying (they surely can love one another), polygamy (nothing she says insists that these are the only people who love one another), and then there’s the case of true love at 12 years old, no problem, Bridgette obviously thinks that they should be able to marry, or maybe only if they’re a same sex couple ? What of those poor victimised sods who want to marry but their parents forbid it for religious reasons, oh, sorry, if the parents are (whisper carefully or be called islamophobic) of a certain religion, that’s alright because they’re even bigger victims and so can dictate their own rights to you, you white, anglo-saxon (or maybe Irish, but really is that all that different ?) descended colonialist oppressor. Now the case of that poor couple who dearly love one another but live and work in different cities, and neither wants to change. Marriage just won’t work and that isn’t fair is it, so how do we move those cities to appease the gods of human rights ?

    Hey, perhaps the next campaign should be one to promote the use of heterosexual people to have a “gay” relationship. I’m male and I want a gay relationship with my female partner. Nothing at all will change in our relationship, but I want to be able to call it gay without you all getting incorrect ideas and thinking things about that relationship, that it isn’t really, truly, gay in some way. Because, that would be against my “human rights” to reclaim “gay”. That’s the level of seriousness of the gay marriage campaign.

    The whole argument is a specious bit of political theatre. The mere use of the name is all that is being argued over, the “right” of homosexuals to further undermine the culture of of others is being put to the test, and it looks like they’ll win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    To your question boredboy, I think exhausting any opposition is part of DPFs instruction sheet. It seems to be succeeding.

    That much is clear, there is simply no balance on this debate whatsoever, the liberal elite have succeeded in forcing conservative heterosexuals to redefine something they value and aren’t they bloody proud of themselves.

    This issue has ramifications for all sorts of activism, the worst being you don’t actually need a valid argument any longer, you just have to really, REALLY want to take something from someone else and then find as many ‘bad’ people that you can point to, to sway the masses (of liberal media).

    This is social engineering at its finest, Helen Clark would be (and probably is) extremely proud, aided and abetted by people like DPF.

    There is no logic to gay marriage, it is as simple as that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Is that all you’ve got?

    “Liberal Elite?”

    “I don’t like it.”

    I’d start getting used to it if I were you or else you are going to drown in rage.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    pauleastbay makes an interesting point. He think society is better than it was 30 years ago. That it is freer and there are more opportunities.

    I would suggest that society in New Zealand is in decline. One needs to go back to the 1950s to find a low level of crime that is unbelievable by today’s standards. John Jamieson the former Commissioner of police spoke to our church one day about this. In 1957 he was an 18-year-old constable on the beat in South Auckland. He had no car, no telephone and no backup. Some evenings he was the only police officer on the beat in South Auckland. But there were such low levels of crime. Today a lone constable in some areas of South Auckland with no mobile communications and no car would have a very low life expectancy. In those days the main crimes were drunkenness.

    Now I would put that down to in part the stable families we had in the 1950s. Mum and dad and the kids was the norm. Today because of the decline in marriage through no fault divorce and the rise of de facto relationships and the rise of “civil unions”, marriage is just a bit of an option. The result is we have a much higher rate of divorce and relationship breakup. Many many children in New Zealand grow up without a father. At some point a child, particularly a boy, needs a father’s guidance. Mothers find it difficult to control their teenage sons.

    Now gay marriage will further undermine marriage. It will take something that is an abomination to some, indeed most men do not like seeing homosexuals kissing, and put it on the level of marriage. This is a fundamental change that will further undermine marriage. Not my marriage, but marriages in generations to come. So marriage will become less popular in days to come. In fact the people that are most championing gay marriage at the moment are not married themselves. They have no intention of getting married – they just want a few homosexuals to get married. What is with that?

    Marriage is the fundamental building block that begins a family and provides a stable unit economically and for the bringing up of any children that may ensue from the union. It is vital to society.

    I don’t know about you, but many taxpayers are tired of funding our huge welfare bill every year. Much of it is domestic purposes benefit. This is the result of the decline of marriage. When the domestic purpose benefit was introduced there were very few solo parents. Now there is thousands and thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands?

    If this were such a small thing why do people like DPF go on about it day after day after day? For him it is a really big thing. And for me too. We just disagree on what is right regarding this issue.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Scott, I think the fact that in the 1950s we had close to 100% employment was the main reason the streets were safe at night, not the fact that gay guys were forced into hiding.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    This whole debate is revealing of a disturbing trends in modern society, the worst being the inability to properly grasp reality and form a rational argument.

    For instance.

    The demand that others have to be ‘nice’ to you is not a fundamental human ‘right’, the gay marriage lobby seems to think it is.

    Heterosexuals having an exclusive tradition is not denying anyone their fundamental human rights if they are not heterosexual, if you are homosexual, you are different, and just like the person that wants to fly like a bird can’t do so, homosexuals can’t be part of an exclusive heterosexual institution. Gay people want to be accepted/celebrated as gay and unique, and then all of a sudden they don’t.
    Don’t lie to yourselves, accept who you are and accept that you are not heterosexual and accept that you don’t need heterosexual traditions.

    The State has a mandate to maintain the human rights of it’s citizens, it does NOT have a mandate to redefine traditions of some of those citizens due to the demands of a tiny minority, the state has no business in messing with the traditions of its citizens and certainly has no business in enabling the liberal social ‘oughts’ (which is all this is), of a confused lobby group.

    There is simply no valid argument for gay marriage, it is a contradiction and completely illogical, gay people are not straight people, accept it and move on.

    But that won’t happen, because the facebook generation (and liberal post modernists and those confused by them) live in a world detached from reality.

    (Oh, and by the way DPF, I am younger than 35)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    scott

    Before my time but anecdotally totally agree with you.

    I’ve read lots on policing etc and in other western jurisdictions it’s amazing at how little serious crime there was about in the ’50′s in the UK and Ireland. That was despite historic unemployment ,depression and what we would consider poor living conditions.

    Interestingly another history ,talking of WW1, there was a notable increase in juvenile delinquency in the UK . Absent fathers.Families do matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    Talking of rights,here’s a piece from todays ODT.

    http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/220943/its-about-liberty-not-equality-french-say

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Oh yes, kowtow, that opinion was from Bruce Logan. Bruce Logan is a former chief executive of research and public policy think tank Maxim Institute and left following accusations of plagiarism.

    I hope the ODT ran it through Copyscape before publishing.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. Lucia Maria (2,208 comments) says:

    Wow, some really good comments today from Ed Snack at 9:20 am, Scott at 10:02 am, and Shunda barunda at 10:19 am.

    The scary thing for me is that when I was Bridgette’s age, I probably would have thought the same way if this debate had come up in the late 80′s/early 90′s.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    “boredboy (178) Says:
    August 10th, 2012 at 10:09 am
    Scott, I think the fact that in the 1950s we had close to 100% employment was the main reason the streets were safe at night, not the fact that gay guys were forced into hiding.”

    Thanks for your comments boredboy. That would be the argument of the left. That crime has to do with poverty and if we had full employment and full equality then crime would be not an issue.

    Interestingly on this very blog DPF posted an article that crime had to do with people lacking a moral compass. So that during the depression for example there wasn’t a notable increase in crime, despite high unemployment. I think the argument about lacking a moral compass today is very relevant.

    But I would suggest that the breakdown of the family has been a key factor. Just to give you an example – an anecdote if you will. But one that I think you might find is repeated in many people’s experience. My family grew up in New Plymouth in the 1960s in a working-class neighbourhood. Most of the people around us were families with a man and a woman and children in the household. The man and the woman were married. There were a lot of children in the neighbourhood. Now I don’t want to paint this scenario with rose tinted glasses. But the fact of the matter is that when I was four years old I was able to go up to the grocery store and the butcher and buy our supplies for the day. I would bike home on my tricycle. Now I did this in perfect safety.

    I ask you now. How many parents today would send their four or five-year-old to the store unaccompanied? But it was possible in the 1960s. Today in that very same neighbourhood the house next door is a tinny house where marijuana is sold. The house on the other side is a brothel. That is the decline of our nation. We need to wake up and smell the coffee. Our nation is in decline. And with all these problems the priority for our Prime Minister is pushing through gay marriage? With families in decline our government wants to arbitrarily redefine an institution that has stood the test of time of centuries. Who do they think they are? We should be strengthening marriage. Not introducing untried innovations to appease a few gay activists.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    boring boy

    Thanks for the contribution. An ad hom. Anything on the item itself? Didn’t think so.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > homosexuals can’t be part of an exclusive heterosexual institution

    Well, actually they can, and there is nothing exclusive about it (bi-sexuals are permitted to get married). Just as women can now vote – there was a time when they weren’t allowed to – and just as women can now compete at the Olypmics – there was a time when they couldn’t. The one constant here is change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Kotow, it’s his opinion. He didn’t add anything of substance other than the fact he doesn’t like marriage equality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > the worst being you don’t actually need a valid argument any longer

    I am still waiting for a valid argument against gay marriage. Given that this issue has been around for a long time, I’m surprised those opposed to gay marriage haven’t got their act together and formulated at least one objection – apart from the trite “but a marriage is between a man and a woman”. That’s not an objection, it’s an opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    Scott, if you had read any one of the numerous studies I listed above, you would have seen that the sexuality of parents has nothing to do with the outcomes for children or your ‘moral compass’.

    The evidence simply doesn’t support your assertation that same-sex families will result in children with defective morals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    Yeah, krazikiwi, I think it’s disgusting how you’ve been casually equated to child molesters, rapists and animal-shaggers. And isn’t it awful how O’Connor, Su’a William Sio, Bill English, Colin Craig, and the entire New Zealand Bishop’s Conference can’t open their mouths in public because of the harassment and intimidation? Oh, wait…

    So to be clear Craig, you endorse ad homs against people who hold a different view to you own. Got it. Thanks.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    boredboy – my argument is that we are in decline. For a number of reasons. But the decline of the traditional married family is a key reason in my view.

    I am sorry but I just do not accept any scientific study at the moment about the subject of gay sexuality. My understanding is that it is too early to scientifically study the results. Most children that have been surveyed have had a mixture of living in a heterosexual home and then a homosexual home. Often this is when one partner comes out and decides that they are gay.

    Secondly I do not trust the scientific establishment at this point. There is overwhelming peer pressure to say “it makes no difference if parents are gay or heterosexual”. To say otherwise is to be a bigot. So I just do not accept those studies at all.

    However if we must debate scientific studies, the overwhelming scientific evidence is that a child is most advantaged, in the most optimum environment, when they are living with their biological mum and dad who are married. Apparently this is extensive and repeatable over many studies in many years.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    To be perfectly honest I just think this is common sense. I believe in mum and dad and the kids. Married raising their children.

    I am sorry but I do not have any faith in homosexual couples raising children, being able to marry and adopt children – that this radical innovation is a good way to go. It is just not possible. It will lead to more family breakdown, more need for social welfare and more fatherless and motherless families.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    I don’t think you are ever going to trust the scientific establishment so long as they disagree with you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    – apart from the trite “but a marriage is between a man and a woman”. That’s not an objection, it’s an opinion.

    No, it’s a ‘fact’ like gravity, or do you see an acceptance of the law of gravity as an opinion too?

    This is exactly the flawed logic I was talking about, and you try to hide it in plain sight.

    That’s all you are doing, but you are only deluding yourself and those that use such flawed reasoning (unfortunately, that could be the majority it would seem)

    Truth or ‘reality’ is not a consensus of opinion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. krazykiwi (9,189 comments) says:

    boredboy -

    The evidence simply doesn’t support your assertation that same-sex families will result in children with defective morals.

    There is no question that in any one family type we can find examples of both atrocious and exemplary parenting. Anecdotal examples prove nothing

    In the past traditional religious values may have directed that the model family environment is a father and mother, but Increasingly social science taking over and pointing to the same model as an optimum. 

    A mum and a dad is where it’s at. Some, probably including you, will find that inconvenient.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RRM (9,477 comments) says:

    But families with a Mum and a Mum already exist. What good is done by illegitimizing them?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    KK, I am not the one who will find it inconvenient. This law is most likely to pass. I suggest it is you who will be monst inconvenienced by it and you will have noone to blame but yourself.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Well, actually they can, and there is nothing exclusive about it (bi-sexuals are permitted to get married).

    Bisexuals are permitted to get married in a heterosexual context, and if they then remain sexually monogamous with their partner they are effectively committed to a heterosexual relationship.

    Try harder Ross.

    Just as women can now vote – there was a time when they weren’t allowed to – and just as women can now compete at the Olypmics – there was a time when they couldn’t. The one constant here is change.

    Nope, you are still struggling terribly with this Ross.

    The vote for women = human rights
    Women in the Olympics = human rights

    Redefining a tradition = religious bigotry all be it without a deity involved.

    The one constant in your example is bigotry.
    *Male bigots
    *Gay bigots

    Because homosexuals refusing the rights of heterosexuals to have their own exclusive traditions is tantamount to intolerant bigotry.

    It is obvious that at least a good portion of gay marriage activists fall into this description.

    And lets use your sports example.

    Do you think women should play for the All Blacks? if not, why not?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. KiwiGreg (3,180 comments) says:

    “Because homosexuals refusing the rights of heterosexuals to have their own exclusive traditions is tantamount to intolerant bigotry.”

    Just like those blacks trying to get into our exclusive golf clubs.

    I cant wait for this bill to pass so that all this crap stops getting posted.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    But families with a Mum and a Mum already exist. What good is done by illegitimizing them?

    Isn’t it great that the civil union legislation has solved that problem, just a shame that it turns out it was never about human rights and was always about cultural redefinition.

    In other issues, this would be described as ‘pathological insecurity’, “I’m different, but I have to be the same!!!”

    Be happy being different, why would a peacock want to be a boring old mallard duck?…..

    ……unless being a peacock makes them feel insecure about all those ducks minding their own business.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    The more I think about it and watch these discussions, the more I think people like Shunda have a point about civil unions.

    The Marriage Act should be removed entirely and all marriages be considered legally civil unions, and it’s up to the individuals whether or not they call their partnership a marriage. That solves all of the problems.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    “Because homosexuals refusing the rights of heterosexuals to have their own exclusive traditions is tantamount to intolerant bigotry.”

    No it’s not. If you want to have your own ceremonies and whatnot that’s fine. When you have a social institution promulgated by the state, it’s called equal rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. Rightandleft (638 comments) says:

    My personal opinion, as a social libertarian, is that the govt should only be giving out civil union licences to everyone. If ‘marriage’ is actually a religious word the govt should not be using it at all. Plenty of mainline Christian churches give gay couples marriages, while others don’t. Let the religions sort that out amongst themselves. The Congregationalists and Methodists in the US have no problem with gay marriages, and of course the Unitarians allow them too. But if the govt is going to give out marriage licences they can’t go around playing the role of the church and deciding who can and can’t have them. The state’s role is just to sign off on a civil contract between two consenting adults.

    I haven’t heard a single convincing argument against allowing marriage equality. I wish those opposed to it would just all come out and admit they just don’t like gays because that’s the truth. Some are certainly honest about that, but too many hide behind silly arguments because they can’t admit they’re just plain old bigots the same as whites who defended apartheid and segregation in past decades.

    As for having marriages for hetero couples and civil unions for gays, that is not a seperate but equal system. In the US the Supreme Court struck down the idea of ‘seperate but equal’ all the way back in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education. They did so because they found that seperate was by definition always unequal.

    Maybe it is because of my age (mid-20s) but I grew up always seeing gays as no different from anyone else, nothing to be afraid of or dislike. Until I was in my teens I’d just assumed gays married the same as everyone else. There were gay couples in the church I was raised in, a mainstream Protestant one. I just can’t understand what the fuss is all about. And the idea that granting equal rights to a group is somehow a waste of time also baffles me. I’m completely against giving special rights to minority groups. But this isn’t granting special rights, this is upholding the ACT promoted principle of one law for all, a principle I believe in completely.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Just like those blacks trying to get into our exclusive golf clubs.

    I am surprised there is any straw left in the country with the rapid production of straw men around here.

    Kiwi Greg is also clearly confused about the difference between human rights and benevolent traditions.

    But, lets use his “golf club” argument anyway.

    It would be like “blacks” wanting to join your exclusive golf club and turn it into a croquet club as well by carving off half your land and turning your 18 hole course into a 9 hole course.

    The golf club members are right to be concerned, particularly when the government gave them a nice 100 acre block right next door.

    Start your own tradition and be happy, this is nothing like racial discrimination.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Rightandleft (638 comments) says:

    Shunda, The golf club analogy makes no sense. You have the course losing half it’s land. If gays get to use the term marriage the hetero couples lose nothing. It has no effect on their marriages at all. In many cultures marriages allow people to wed multiple wives or husbands. They are already getting to call that marriage and have for millenia. Has that really destroyed your institution of marriage? How would gays marrying here be more damaging?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    It would be like “blacks” wanting to join your exclusive golf club and turn it into a croquet club as well by carving off half your land and turning your 18 hole course into a 9 hole course.

    Not really, since the only difference between marriage before and after is whether or not it excludes same-sex couples. To keep it analogous, letting “blacks” join your exclusive golf club would simply change it from the kind of golf club that excludes them to the kind of golf club that includes them. That is the extent of the change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    The more I think about it and watch these discussions, the more I think people like Shunda have a point about civil unions.

    The Marriage Act should be removed entirely and all marriages be considered legally civil unions, and it’s up to the individuals whether or not they call their partnership a marriage. That solves all of the problems.

    I think we actually agree on something Ryan, as that, (in my opinion) is the only logical way to resolve this issue.

    Civil unions make sense as the way the state recognizes a long term commitment between two of its citizens, if there is a valid reason to change the tradition of marriage, society will resolve that organically among themselves over time, the state has no mandate to do that.

    Let the extremists fight it out in their own time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    I think we actually agree on something Ryan, as that, (in my opinion) is the only logical way to resolve this issue.

    Civil unions make sense as the way the state recognizes a long term commitment between two of its citizens, if there is a valid reason to change the tradition of marriage, society will resolve that organically among themselves over time, the state has no mandate to do that.

    Let the extremists fight it out in their own time.

    Yep, Shunda, we agree. That’s a nice way to end a week, isn’t it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Shunda, The golf club analogy makes no sense. You have the course losing half it’s land. If gays get to use the term marriage the hetero couples lose nothing.

    The golf course doesn’t loose half its land, it has the sporting activity on that land redefined, remember, they all want to be included in the same club.

    But people keep saying to the golfers: “why do you care? the new definition still involves a ball and a club doesn’t it?”

    Think about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Yep, Shunda, we agree. That’s a nice way to end a week, isn’t it

    Yep, it is, I like being challenged by you Ryan and the rare times we’re in agreement should be cherished! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. boredboy (250 comments) says:

    It is nice to end the week in agreement. However, I find it deeply ironic that, despite the sanctity of marriage, SB is perfectly happy with dissolving it altogether.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Yep, it is, I like being challenged by you Ryan and the rare times we’re in agreement should be cherished!

    The planets are in alignment! Shunda and Ryan agree on something! The end of days is here!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. Ryan Sproull (7,033 comments) says:

    Seriously, though, even though it sounds like an ideal solution, I can imagine how it would be received. “Private Members Bill aims to abolish marriage!”

    And that’s another thing – New Zealand marriages and New Zealand civil unions can be treated differently overseas, I think, so that would have to be addressed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Scott (1,710 comments) says:

    Well Ryan it is good to see you and Shunda in agreement. Heartwarming really.

    I would have to say that the state does have a major interest in the welfare of its citizens and the rearing of the next generation of New Zealanders. In my opinion the state should be supporting marriage between a man and a woman and the raising of the children that may ensue. This is the optimum arrangement for the welfare of the next generation. It is also the best way to smaller government and less social welfare. Mum and dad are a viable economic unit that care for and pay for the raising of their children. This means the already overburdened taxpayer doesn’t have to.

    Gay marriage will only add to the complications, family breakdowns and subsequent social, moral and financial cost to the country. We have thousands and thousands on welfare now. So we want to tinker with marriage some more and add to the cost of social welfare for future generations? That just doesn’t seem smart.

    So the state should stay in the licensing of marriages. The state should get out of other arrangements in my view. If people want to live together without marriage, then why should the state marry them in all but name after two years? The loose and liberal arrangements that we have allowed to happen about sex and the children that result has been a high cost to the country. I don’t know about you, but I am getting tired of paying for other people’s loose living arrangements. Our taxes are high enough already. I would like to see lower taxes and less government.

    Government redefining marriage at the whim of a few gay activists and bohemian urban Liberals makes no sense – morally or financially.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Anne Neville (4 comments) says:

    Ryan Sproull (5,102) Says:
    August 10th, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    And that’s another thing – New Zealand marriages and New Zealand civil unions can be treated differently overseas, I think, so that would have to be addressed.

    This is true. Gay couples with NZ civil unions are not always afforded the same rights and recognition overseas, rights that would be available if they were married. Though NZ civil unions provide most of the rights of marriage here, overseas they provide fewer rights and are often considered second class. Internationally the trend to same sex marriage is clear and New Zealand citizens should be able to access the same relationship status regardless of sexual orientation.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Redbaiter (7,642 comments) says:

    “Bridgette’s comments just reinforce for me, that this is just not an issue for hardly anyone under 35, and in fact many younger kiwis just can’t understand how some people are opposed.”

    So you support the indoctrination of school children in government schools?

    Personally, I find this the most repugnant feature of the whole argument.

    Indoctrination of the young in government schools they are forced to attend is a disgusting strategy and one that is usually only carried out by the most reprehensible regimes.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    The Marriage Act should be removed entirely and all marriages be considered legally civil unions, and it’s up to the individuals whether or not they call their partnership a marriage. That solves all of the problems.

    Ryan you know nothing about social engineering. That would be the ideal solution for the gay (actually communist) activists who aim to destroy the family unit. That’s like saying in order to avoid the nastiness of a war and all of those dead bodies and property destruction, why let’s just tell the enemy he can walk right in and do what he wants.

    What pray tell do you think would have happened if NZ had said that to say, Japan in 1941? And yet this is precisely what you’re proposing here. The only difference is, it’s an institution, not a country. But you’re still saying: come in, rape us, kill us, burn us, steal our property, do whatever you want, hey, we don’t care.

    Indoctrination of the young in government schools … is a disgusting strategy…

    Agree RB. That’s modern education. Leave out the indoctrination, get back to education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  129. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    That would be the ideal solution for the gay (actually communist) activists who aim to destroy the family unit.

    That is just such bloody nonsense. How and why would anyone aim to destroy the family unit? And how would they do that?
    By joining the club and creating families of their own? Wow, now that make sense.

    hat’s like saying in order to avoid the nastiness of a war and all of those dead bodies and property destruction, why let’s just tell the enemy he can walk right in and do what he wants.

    Kind of explains your whole attitude and posts, doesn’t it? The gays are “the enemy”. Nice one.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Reid, the state has a different mandate to the church, there is a difference between handing over a tradition and fulfilling legal equality.

    By repealing the marriage act, marriage can stay the tradition it currently is and any perceived human rights issues removed.

    Marriage will then, over time, become what people want it to become without interference by the state as should always be the case.
    Whoever values the institution the most will dominate the tradition.

    My guess is that this solution will aggravate bigots on both sides of the argument and will not satisfy them in the least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  131. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    It would be like “blacks” wanting to join your exclusive golf club and turn it into a croquet club as well by carving off half your land and turning your 18 hole course into a 9 hole course.

    That just makes no sense. The analogy of joining the golf club is quite a good one. All this bill proposes is that gay people an get married, which is the equivalent of blacks joining the golf club.

    Ryans solution of getting rid of the marriage act ( the one you support) is basically allowing blacks to join the club and renaming the club from Golf Club to Entertainment Club.

    And then people can call it what they want continue calling it golf club.

    While I support the notion, in effect it is the same thing as this bill proposes. Although instead of a civil union it will be called marriage, same-sex and opposite sex. If you choose to think that sames-sex marriage isn’t “really marriage” you are free to do so.

    I therefore cannot see why you are getting so fussed up about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  132. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    My guess is that this solution will aggravate bigots on both sides of the argument and will not satisfy them in the least.

    Not at all, but the only effect will be that everyone, same-sex or not, will be calling civil unions marriage.
    In effect, how is that different from the proposed bill?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  133. Andrei (2,506 comments) says:

    Though NZ civil unions provide most of the rights of marriage here, overseas they provide fewer rights and are often considered second class.

    Whoa, I just sprayed coffee all over my screen.

    There are over 160 sovereign nations in this world, girl, and out of those number about ten just about all in North Western Europe have gay “marriage” or civil unions.

    On the rest of the planet this issue is not even on the radar.

    As it stands New Zealand’s registered marriages are recognized in Saudi Arabia and if you are to travel their with your spouse it is important to have that documentation.

    Perhaps when the definition is changed the Saudi’s will no longer recognize our marriages – it would be logical not to since the definition of marriage would now be something entirely novel to the rest of the world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    There are over 160 sovereign nations in this world, girl, and out of those number about ten just about all in North Western Europe have gay “marriage” or civil unions.

    And that number is growing. 11 countries ( (Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Iceland, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, Sweden) and some parts of Mexico and the United States.

    Women suffrage also started out in only one country,

    it would be logical not to since the definition of marriage would now be something entirely novel to the rest of the world.

    If 11 countries have already done it, it wouldn’t be that novel any more, would it now?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  135. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    Not at all, but the only effect will be that everyone, same-sex or not, will be calling civil unions marriage.
    In effect, how is that different from the proposed bill?

    It is totally different, one is the state redefining the traditions of its citizens, the other involves organic change from within society.

    People now choose civil unions over marriage because they don’t value that institution, they don’t refer to themselves as “married”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Shunda barunda (2,965 comments) says:

    eszett, should we also get upset about men being unable to play for the silver ferns? because that is about as clever an argument anyone here has made so far for gay marriage.

    Sexuality specific institutions are not denying anyone anything, unless they loath being gay that is………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    People now choose civil unions over marriage because they don’t value that institution, they don’t refer to themselves as “married”.

    Actually, most people who choose civil unions over marriage because they are not allowed to get married.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    Sexuality specific institutions are not denying anyone anything, unless they loath being gay that is………

    Race specific institutions are not denying anyone anything, unless they loath being that race that is….

    Sounds very much like discrimination to me.

    That’s why it should be changed. No reason to discriminate based on sexuality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    It is totally different, one is the state redefining the traditions of its citizens, the other involves organic change from within society.

    I would say, the organic change has already happened. The state is redefining merely to follow reflect that change.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  140. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    How and why would anyone aim to destroy the family unit?

    Why did commies ban religion? Because it was the opiate of the people: i.e. their support mechanism. What is the family unit? Why it’s the support mechanism par excellence. Undermine that, in whatever way, and you have, over time, over generations, over centuries, a re-engineered society.

    This is why eszett. This is social engineering 101.

    The gays are “the enemy”.

    No not really. I was referring to the directors of the social engineering eszett. You know, those people in the universities and the think tanks like the Tavistock Institute that are designing this and they are doing it so people are easier to control. Very simple. I was referring to them as the enemy since its an analogy people can grasp. Most gays are of course useful idiots. Some of them really do think it’s a human rights issue. That’s why they support it. Of course this doesn’t make them correct in their thinking. I mean just because you’re gay doesn’t grant you some special perspicacity that straight people don’t have, does it.

    I mean it’s not like hey, I’m a celebrity like Lucy Lawless so people should quote me all the time because hey, you know, I know heaps about this global warming thingy and it’s really really bad and hey – I’ve been on telly, you know, hey.

    It’s not like that, is it, eszett.

    People now choose civil unions over marriage because they don’t value that institution, they don’t refer to themselves as “married”.

    Yes and that’s just fine Shunda and I’m sure social engineering has nothing to do with that either. As long as social engineers aren’t involved in “helping things along” I don’t give a damn if organic change occurs in social thinking. I mean who cares.

    But that’s not what’s been happening.

    You both – eszett and Shunda – need to know that marriage = family in terms of social engineering. When social engineers seek to change marriage they seek to change the family unit, they don’t care about specific individual marriages and they don’t care about partnerships between a man and woman without children. I mean why would they care, they’re social engineers, so they focus on social structures and a two adult structure is set in stone unless and until, you bring another or more people into it who gets influenced by it then leaves it, then, and only then, the social structure becomes interesting to social engineers.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. adamsmith1922 (888 comments) says:

    So much crap, Brigette is right

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  142. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    So much crap, Brigette is right

    Yes if you’re 13, adam and you live with your parents and you don’t understand the world because you’ve never lived in it.

    If you’re an adult, you have responsibilities to think more clearly than she does, for the good of the society you live in.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  143. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    What nonsense reid. You seem to be in love with the words “Social engineering”.

    You still haven’t explained why? What is the end goal in this bizarre scenario of yours? And how would gay marriage undermine the family unit?

    It’s just plain delusional batshit idiotic nonsense, nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  144. kowtow (7,652 comments) says:

    This business of the 16 or whatever # of countries proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that a combination of Labour/homosexual/ judicial activism has forced the issue in those places.The Greens have since taken it up with gusto.It remains very controversial in a number of them. Nothing organic,very activist minority stuff.

    Culture war.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  145. eszett (2,337 comments) says:

    kowtow (2,537) Says:
    August 10th, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    This business of the 16 or whatever # of countries proves absolutely nothing other than the fact that a combination of Labour/homosexual/ judicial activism has forced the issue in those places.

    Yeah, that’s what they said about women’s suffrage as well.

    Nothing organic,very activist minority stuff.

    The opposition to it is.

    The support for it in New Zealand is widespread and growing

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  146. Reid (15,970 comments) says:

    You still haven’t explained why?

    eszett the goal of communist society, which is mad, but nevertheless is the goal, is to reduce the support structures an individual relies on so they turn to the state for support. This is why they banned religion. Yes it is mad, but they did it, didn’t they. That is why.

    The thing that people don’t get is that feminism and gay rights are communist social engineering manifestations. Yes they are. Look at what they have done to change society and the family unit since the 60′s.

    To understand this you need to understand where the social movement came from. Most people think things like gay rights, feminism etc came from a grassroot spontaneous upswelling. When you look at the history you realise this isn’t true at all, it was all engineered.

    It’s a bit like looking back at the JFK assassination and thinking to yourself, oh yeah, that really happened from a guy in the book repository. But most people have got beyond that shock these days and recognise in fact, the JFK assassination stinks to high heaven for any sentient being on the planet. That’s what you need to look at this stuff like, too. If you don’t you’ll never see it. But if you do, then it’s as obvious as anything, just exactly like its obvious that the JFK truth has never been revealed. Simple. As. That. (And as complicated as that as well, but if you wish to curl up in a little ball and close your eyes and pretend it doesn’t happen like that then go ahead, I really don’t give a damn.)

    One, only one of the many possible alternatives mind you, of the leads you can trace goes back to the UCLA campus at Berkeley, where the Frankfurt School had migrated to 60 years before.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurt_School

    Then just google: frankfurt school ucla and just follow your nose from there.

    It’s just plain delusional batshit idiotic nonsense, nothing more.

    So was the Cold War eszett, and that really happened, didn’t it. Billions, if not trillions of dollars of OUR money they spent chasing targets, conducting espion missions, building weapons systems, all for nothing, complete bullshit. Real deaths. Real money. Real weapons built. Threat assessment? Zero. Always. Don’t believe it happened that way? Look at the history and the documents now released. It’s now perfectly clear the govts knew what the real threat was. They just decided to play it that way, for their own reasons.

    Couldn’t happen again?

    Of course not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  147. Johnboy (14,998 comments) says:

    “The support for it in New Zealand is widespread and growing”

    Bloody good news eszett.

    Once we have had 100% support for homo marriage for a while all our problems will be over! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  148. Redbaiter (7,642 comments) says:

    adamsmith1922 – “So much crap, Brigette is right”

    A silly little half educated cultural Marxist who doesn’t know the difference between “Atlas Shrugged” and “Das Kapital”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  149. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    Andrei (1,381) Says:
    August 10th, 2012 at 7:38 pm

    l can’t understand why they can’t see it, its like they’re in the room but can’t see the light switch.
    Are they so far gone?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  150. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    no johnboy.
    then they’ll need to make an example of all the dissenters to prove they are equal.
    then chase them out of public life and sue their businesses for discrimination.

    The homosexual community is not the best place for our children, a mum and dad are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  151. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/08/08/gay-rocker-supports-free-speech

    says it all really, pity the liberal fascist don’t honour the real meaning of tolerance instead of their twisted version.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  152. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/am_i_a_homophobe.html

    What a lovely article.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  153. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/what_would_che_think_of_same-sex_marriage.html

    everyones got an agenda

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  154. Still Here (1,091 comments) says:

    Just read this.

    http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/08/what_would_che_think_of_same-sex_marriage.html

    “It was not some Old Testament outlier who defined marriage for Christians, but Jesus himself, and he did so in a loving fashion. In Mark 10: 7-12, he cites Genesis and introduces an essential new understanding of God’s plan for man:
    But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

    Chick-fil-A honcho Dan Cathy captured the spirit of this understanding in his now famous response to a question from the Baptist Press. “We are very much supportive of the family – the biblical definition of the family unit,” said Cathy. “We are a family-owned business, a family-led business, and we are married to our first wives.” Yes, the “asunder” part matters.

    Procreation obviously matters too, but it is not the essence of marriage. That, according to Jesus, is the spiritual reunification of the two complementary human life forces, male and female. Gay unions can never do that. Two men or two women can never be “one flesh.” To call their union “marriage” does not expand the meaning of the word. It erodes that meaning.
    Hard core activists know this. They know that serious Bible-believing Christians and Orthodox Jews cannot compromise on marriage. They know that most Christian churches will never accept gay weddings. That is exactly why they force the issue. They want conflict. They want chaos. They want to undermine this, the last great bulwark against socialism.”

    Everyones got an agenda haven’t they?
    I honestly wonder what (non practicing christian) DPF’s is by bring it up again and again.
    It almost seems (almost!) like the pull – push strategy in an advertising campaign.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  155. Scott Hamilton (286 comments) says:

    I do find it bizarre how a conspiracy theory has grown up round the notion of the Frankfurt School inventing feminism, gay rights, student protest, and various other attempts to destroy Western civilisation. The fact that the two main institutional pillars of the Frankfurt School, Adorno and Horkheimer, ended up as grumpy old right-wingers who called the cops on student protesters and got into confrontations with nude feminists who disrupted their lectures, never seems to register with the purveyors of the conspiracy theory.

    And the fact that the current Pope is far more influenced by Adorno and Horkheimer’s key work, The Dialectic of Enlightenment, than any leftist I know (cf http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2009/10/is-pope-marxist.html) never seems to register with the Catholic purveyors of the conspiracy theory. If you guys took the trouble to read The Dialectic of Enlightenment, as Ratzinger did back in the ’60s, you’d see that it is an anti-modernist and in many ways anti-Marxist text that fits rather well with key parts of your worldview!

    I had a go at trying to reason with Fletch about the Frankfurters a while back:
    http://readingthemaps.blogspot.co.nz/2011/07/cooking-frankfurters.html

    Here’s an excerpt from my rather fruitless chat with Fletch:

    Can you honestly say you’ve read a book by any of the dozen or so thinkers associated with the two generations of the Frankfurt School? Those thinkers range in themes and in arguments enormously. Adorno and Marcuse are in many ways chalk and cheese.

    If you take the trouble to read Adorno, or even just find out some of the basic facts about his life, you’ll learn he was bitterly at odds with the student movement in the universities in the ’60s. Radical feminists hated him and, as I noted, disrupted his last lecture.

    Marcuse was much more popular with students, but he was in no way in favour of showing ‘intolerance for anything coming from the right’ and ‘tolerance for anything coming from the left’. If you look at his last book The Aesthetic Dimension you’ll see that he explicitly argues against a lot of works of art created to express left-wing ideas in a propagandistic way, on the grounds that art should not be a vehicle for propaganda, and that he defends works of art created by right-wingers from leftists who would dismiss them out of hand (he talks, for instance, about Balzac as a man who had reactionary politics but was nevertheless a great writer).

    In The Aesthetic Dimension Marcuse also attacks a number of forms of art thrown up by the hippe generation as shallow and inferior to the great works of the bourgeois writers of the nineteenth century. He denies, for example, that the Happening, which was a very popular artform amongst the counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s, has any real aesthetic or political merit. So much for hating Western culture.

    Just as Marcuse differed from Grossman, so later arrivals at the School differed from Marcuse. Jorgen Habermas, for example, ditched Marcuse’s radical politics and developed some of the ideas which have become known in Britain as the ‘Third Way’. In the early noughties Habermas acted as an advisor to Blair’s German ally Schroeder and publically supported Bush’s invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11.

    Habermas was in no way the first Frankfurter to take a rightward intellectual trajectory: Adorno and Max Horkheimer both moved to the right in the last decades of their lives. As I noted, Adorno opposed Germany’s left-wing student movement. On one occasion he called the police when he found that left-wing students had occupied the buildings of the Frankfurt School. For his part, Horkheimer became a supporter of LBJ’s war in Vietnam. It really is foolish to try to make a politically heterogenous collection of thinkers like the folks who taught at Frankfurt into some sort of secret super-radical revolutionary clique, but I don’t suppose the spectre of foolishness has ever deterred some people…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.